H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov:

I thank the Vice Chairman. Unfortunately, the committee operates with one side of the information, so I will outline the real situation in the region. Let me introduce or remind the committee of what happened in Ukraine step by step. It began following the EU's invitation to the Ukraine to become an associate member, which does not mean that it would immediately have become a member.

Ukraine is a sovereign country and has a right to go with Russia or Europe, but it was a fatal mistake on the part of Europeans to make this proposal an ultimatum - "You will go with Europe or you will go with Russia." Is it a mistake or is it a well-prepared step? I do not know, but it was the action from Brussels. What was our reaction? It was put to Ukrainians and it was put to Brussels as to why they put forward this alternative. We have our own relations with Ukraine and we have our own relations and co-operation with Europe. We asked why they made this kind of ultimatum and they said they had no other choice. "You will go with Europe or you will go with Russia." We did not present this kind of choice to Ukrainians. We asked them to read the agreement of association and then to take their calculators and begin to count down the economic result of this, with the special relationship with Europe and Russia. They began to think and then they said they would postpone their decision to sign the agreement. That was their choice.

The next step was the beginning of demonstrations and meetings in Maidan. First, who were the people who came to Maidan, or Independence Square? Decent people, people who sincerely believed in their European future, people who were tired of corruption, local hostilities and so on. They showed their emotions but it was only the first step. Immediately, radicals and right-wingers spread into their meetings and the real killings and massacres began. I remind the committee that in spite of all the difficulties, there is no difference in the way we look upon Viktor Yanukovych. Whether we like him or not, it does not matter. He did not give a command to police and to Berkut to shoot. Who was shooting? We now know it was snipers; the Estonian Minister for Foreign Affairs said it was one of the members of the coalition. That is all.

The next step, after analysis of the situation following talks or negotiations - by the way, we took part in this with Yanukovych - was that our European and American colleagues and partners decided on and signed an agreement dated 21 February. What was written in this agreement? The agreement provided that new presidential elections would take place at the end of this year, that the constitution of 2004 would be restored, that the Berkut police would go back to their barracks, that no emergency situation would be claimed in Kiev or in the country, and there would be constitutional reform. These were the proposals of Yanukovych, all of which were fulfilled. While the opposition was obliged to disarm its military groups and to free up all of the administrative buildings it had taken over, it did not fulfil any of these obligations. Immediately there was a question about the three countries that guaranteed the agreement, and their reaction was zero.

The next step was that Viktor Yanukovych had to leave the country, and illegal steps by the Rada began the procedure of impeachment of the president. In the constitution there is a paragraph stating how this procedure must be done. They did not do it. Therefore, the procedure of impeachment was not fulfilled at all.

At that time Ukraine had no economic or ethnic problems. The first two decisions of the Parliament were the banning or cancelling of two laws - the law on regional languages and the law banning the propaganda of fascism and Nazism. What was the reason for this? Whether or not it had no other business to do, it was a very clear marker for all Ukrainians. It was a threat to Russian speakers.